Plant Ecology

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 13–24 | Cite as

Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the growth and survival of native tree seedlings

Abstract

Invasive plants are often associated with reduced cover of native plants, but rarely has competition between invasives and natives been assessed experimentally. The shrub Lonicera maackii, native to northeastern Asia, has invaded forests and old fields in numerous parts of eastern North America, and is associated with reduced tree seedling density in Ohio forests. A field experiment was conducted to test the effects of established L. maackii on the survival and growth of transplanted native tree species. The experiment examined above-ground competition (by removing L. maackii shoots) and below-ground competition (by trenching around transplanted seedlings). The effects of above-ground competition with L. maackii were generally more important than below-ground competition, though both were detected. Shoot treatment was the key determinant for the survival of all species except P. serotina, whereas trenching only enhanced survival for A. saccharum caged and P. serotina, and only in the shoot removal treatment. For the surviving seedlings, L. maackii shoot removal increased growth of A. saccharum seedlings protected with cages, but actually reduced the growth of unprotected Q. rubra and A. saccharum seedlings, indicating that L. maackii shoots confer some protection from deer browsing. Significant interactions between root and shoot treatment on Q. rubra growth parameters, specifically greatest growth in the shoot present & trenched treatment, is attributed to protection from deer browsing combined with release from below-ground competition. Despite this protective function of L. maackii shoots, the overall effect of this invasive shrub is increased mortality of native tree seedlings, suggesting it impacts the natural regeneration of secondary forests.

Acer saccharum Exotic species Fraxinus americana Plant competition Prunus serotina Quercus rubra 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barnes W.J. 1972. The autecology of the Lonicera X bella complex. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  2. Braun E.L. 1961. The woody plants of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.Google Scholar
  3. Brothers T.S. and Spingarn A. 1992. Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasion of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conservation Biology 6: 91–100.Google Scholar
  4. Coates K.D., Emmingham W.H. and Radosevich S.R. 1991. Conifer-seedling success and microclimate at different levels of herb and shrub cover in a Rhododendron-Vaccinium-Menziesia community of south central British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 21: 858–866.Google Scholar
  5. Collier M.H., Vankat J.L. and Hughes M.R. 2002. Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. American Midland Naturalist 147: 60–71.Google Scholar
  6. Davis M.A. and Thompson K. 2000. Eight ways to be a colonizer; two ways to be an invader: a proposed nomenclature scheme for invasion ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 81: 226–230.Google Scholar
  7. Dillenburg L.R., Whigham D.F., Teramura A.H. and Forseth I.N. 1993. Effects of below-and above-ground competition from the vines Lonicera japonica and Parthenocissus quinquefolia on the growth of the tree host Liquidambar styraciflua. Oecologia 93: 48–54.Google Scholar
  8. Ewel J.J., O'Dowd D.J., Bergelson J., Daehler C.C., D'Antonio C.M., Diego Gomez L. et al. 1999. Deliberate introductions of species: research needs. Bioscience 49: 619–630.Google Scholar
  9. Fikes J. and Niering W.A. 1999. Four decades of old field vegetation development and the role of Celastrus orbiculatus in the northeastern United States. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 483–492.Google Scholar
  10. Gleason H.A. and Cronquist A. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd edn. New York Botanical Gardens, Bronx.Google Scholar
  11. Gould A.M.A. and Gorchov D.L. 2000. Effects of the exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of three species of native annuals. American Midland Naturalist 144: 36–50.Google Scholar
  12. Harrington R.A., Brown B.J. and Reich P.B. 1989. Ecophysiology of exotic and native shrubs in Southern Wisconsin: 1. Relationship of leaf characteristics, resource availability, and phenology to seasonal patterns of carbon gain. Oecologia 80: 356–367.Google Scholar
  13. Harty F.M. 1993. How Illinois kicked the exotic habit. In: McKnight B.N. (ed.), Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar
  14. Hobbs R.J. and Huenneke L.F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 3: 324–337.Google Scholar
  15. Huenneke L.F. and Thomson J.K. 1995. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conservation Biology 9: 416–425.Google Scholar
  16. Hutchinson T.L. and Vankat J.L. 1997. Invasibility and effects of Amur honeysuckle in southwestern Ohio forests. Conservation Biology 11: 1117–1124.Google Scholar
  17. Ingold J.L. and Craycraft M.J. 1983. Avian frugivory on honeysuckle (Lonicera) in southwestern Ohio. Ohio Journal of Science 83: 256–258.Google Scholar
  18. Kareiva P. 1996. Developing a predictive ecology for non-indigenous species and ecological invasions. Ecology 77: 1651–1652.Google Scholar
  19. Kobe R.K., Pacala S.W., Silander J.A. and Canham C.D. 1995. Juvenile tree survivorship as a component of shade tolerance. Ecological Applications 5: 517–532.Google Scholar
  20. Lemmon P.E. 1956. A spherical densiometer for estimating forest overstory density. Forest Science 2: 314–320.Google Scholar
  21. Lodge D.M. 1993. Biological invasions: Lessons for ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8: 133–137.Google Scholar
  22. Lovell P.H. and Lovell P.J. 1985. The importance of plant form as a determining factor in competition and habitat exploitation. In: White J. (ed.), Studies on plant demography: a Festschrift for John L. Harper. Academic Press, London, pp. 209–221.Google Scholar
  23. Luken J.O. 1988. Population structure and biomass allocation of the naturalized shrub Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. in forest and open habitats. American Midland Naturalist 199: 258– 267.Google Scholar
  24. Luken J.O. and Goessling N. 1995. Seedling distribution and potential persistence of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii in fragmented forests. American Midland Naturalist 133: 124–130.Google Scholar
  25. Luken J.O., Kuddes L.M. and Tholemeier T.C. 1997. Response of understory species to gap formation and soil disturbance in Lonicera maackii thickets. Restoration Ecology 5: 229–235.Google Scholar
  26. Luken J.O. and Thieret J.W. 1995. Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii; Caprifoliaceae): Its ascent, decline, and fall. Sida 16: 479–503.Google Scholar
  27. Luken J.O. and Thieret J.W. 1996. Amur honeysuckle, its fall from grace. BioScience 46: 18–24.Google Scholar
  28. Luken J.O., Tholemeier T.C., Kunkel B.A. and Kuddes L.M. 1995. Branch architecture plasticity of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder): initial response in extreme light environments. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 122: 190–195.Google Scholar
  29. Mack R.N. 1996. Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biological Conservation 78: 107–121.Google Scholar
  30. Medley K.E. 1997. Distribution of the non-native shrub Lonicera maackii in Kramer Woods, Ohio. Physical Geography 18: 18– 36.Google Scholar
  31. Meekins J.F. and McCarthy B.C. 1999. Competitive ability of Alliaria petiolata (Garlic Mustard, Brassicaceae), an invasive, nonindigenous forest herb. International Journal of Plant Science 160: 743–752.Google Scholar
  32. Midgley G.F., Rutherford M.C., Davis G.W. and de W. Bosenberg J. 1992. Photosynthetic responses of heliophilous Rhus species to environmental modification by invasive shrubs. Functional Ecology 6: 334–345.Google Scholar
  33. Miller K.E. 2001. Effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Amur Honeysuckle), on survival, growth, and fecundity of native understory perennial herbs in southwestern Ohio forests. MS thesis, Miami University, Oxford, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Office of Technology Assessment 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Pringle J.S. 1973. Lonicera maackii (Caprifoliaceae) adventive in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 87: 54–55.Google Scholar
  36. Reichard S.H. and Hamilton C.W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conservation Biology 11: 193–203.Google Scholar
  37. Rejmánek M. 1996. A theory of seed plant invasiveness: The first sketch. Biological Conservation 78: 171–181.Google Scholar
  38. Rejmánek M. and Richardson D.M. 1996. What attributes make some plant species more invasive? Ecology 77: 1655–1661.Google Scholar
  39. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf F.J. 1995. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd edn. W.H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Stohlgren T.J., Binkley D., Chong G.W., Kalkhan M.A., Schell L.D., Bull K.A. et al. 1999. Exotic plant species invade hot spots of native plant diversity. Ecological Monographs 69: 25– 46.Google Scholar
  41. Trisel D.E. 1997. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae): Factors contributing to its success and its effect on native species. PhD Dissertation, Miami University, Oxford, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Trisel D.E. and Gorchov D.L. 1994. Regional distribution, leaf phenology, and herbivory of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 75: 231–232.Google Scholar
  43. Usher M.B. 1988. Biological invasions of nature reserves: A search for generalisations. Biological Conservation 44: 119–135.Google Scholar
  44. Vankat J.L., Blackwell H.W. and Hopkins W.E. 1975. The dynamics of Hueston Woods and a review of the question of the successional status of the southern beech-maple forest. Castanea 40: 290–308.Google Scholar
  45. Vitousek P.M., D'Antonio C.M., Loope L.L. and Westbrooks R. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84: 468–478.Google Scholar
  46. Walker L.R. and Vitousek P.M. 1991. An invader alters germination and growth of a native dominant tree in Hawaii. Ecology 72: 1449–1455.Google Scholar
  47. Weidenhamer J.D., Hartnett D.C. and Romeo J.T. 1989. Densitydependent phytotoxicity: distinguishing resource competition and allelopathic interference in plants. Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 613–624.Google Scholar
  48. Williamson M.H. and Fitter A. 1996. The characters of successful invaders. Biological Conservation 78: 163–170.Google Scholar
  49. Witkowski E.T.F. 1991. Growth and competition between seedlings of Protea repens (L) L and the alien invasive, Acacia saligna (Labill) Wendl in relation to nutrient availability. Functional Ecology 5: 101–110.Google Scholar
  50. Woods K.D. 1993. Effects of invasion by Lonicera tatarica L. on herbs and tree seedlings in four New England forests. American Midland Naturalist 130: 62–74.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BotanyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  2. 2.School of Science & MathFairmont State CollegeFairmontUSA

Personalised recommendations